A proof for the existence of God?

[Lifegazer]

This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion... which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.
Additionally:-
We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. Note too that our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, minds possessed universal-knowledge before those minds could ever come to 'sense' the order of the universe.

Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.
Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

 

[heusdens]

Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind. The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others, compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions, and conclude that the subjective senses we have about the world, must have been caused by an objective material world, that exists independend of our mind.
One obvious conclusion you forget to draw (of course).

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958".

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158" ...

Originally posted by Iachhus32
Which came first? The essence or the form? Doesn't form accrete itself around the essence? If so, then there must have been an "essential universe" before a material one.

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Essence and form as equal doesn't make sense because you can obliterate the form and still have the essence, but the opposite isn't true.

You can remove the essence (life) from a human being, and you would still have a form, albeit a "dead form." The question is, where does the essence go almost immediately upon death? Whereas you could "cremate" the corpse later on, but that would be comparable to burning a piece of "dead wood."

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by FZ+
Like different reactions within all their cells, an excess of calcium in the bloodstream, certain parts switched to self destruct mode, lack of breathing, end of coherent synapse signals in brain, end of blood current...

Death is a very physical affair.

But why is it that we're cognitive one moment and gone the next? I don't know, but there's something about being cognitive, that at least to me, suggests that which is eternal. And indeed "the moment" is--by which cognizance manifests--"eternal."

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by heusdens
My statement was that every mind must be based on material grounds.

That statement is falsified if you show me an example of a mind that is not based on material grounds.

Now the only possible way to give a counter example was to show the existence of a mind, that is not based on material grounds.
But from the nature of what has to be proven, it follows, that no such example can be given, at least not in a material sense (since if it is based on material grounds, it would not fit as proof).

Hence it follows that such an example can not be given.

(the spiritual proof, I would not count as proof)

We have the outward appearance of things and we have the inward appearance of things, one of which is the manifestation of the other. Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

If we don't understand what that essence is, then we must be willing to dive into it (the subconscious) in order to find out what it means. And yes, I mean the realm of dreams and myths. Are you at all familiar with Jung's work, and the "collective unconscious?"

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by heusdens
Not in detail.
What does this collective unconsciousness contribute to our knowledge?
And how does the collective unconsciousness stand to the collective consciousness?

Jung did a lot of work with dreams, archetypes and synchronistic occurrences, and discovered a lot of "basic patterns" to human behvaior which extend across the globe, regardless of cultural differences. Meaning there is common ground to all of us which can be ascertained "within." And, whether we care to do the research for ourselves or not is really another matter?

As far "collective consciousness" is concerned what do you mean by that? I don't claim to be up on all these things either, but like Jung (intially anyway), most of my tests are performed with "my self" as a reference.

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, you showed what premises Idealism is working on. They are the direct opposite of Materialism. So, if I have to choose between them, I choose the latter.

If we got wuliheron in on the discussion, he would probably say the two are correlative, and that you really can't have one without the other.

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by Tom
I stick with my first post in this thread: There is evidence of matter, and none of spirit.

I'm sorry, but everything begins with, and ends with, the fact that I'm conscious. Otherwise "nothing" would exist, at least for me anyway.

And what does heusdens mean by, "If he had to choose?" That doesn't sound "very objective" to me? It sounds a lot like faith? Or, at the very least an assumption. Hmm...

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by Tom
Of course it's an assumption. It's more reasonable than assuming it's negative.

You seem to find that questionable. Why?

What it means is that you really don't know anything, except of course by what you gleen through being conscious. So where's the standard to "the without," if it's not contained in "the within?"

Perhaps this is why it's necessary to give to rights individuals in this country? For therein the "parity check" lies ...

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by Tom
Are you reading my posts?

The standard to the without comes from the fact that there are other people who have basically the same experiences as you do. So, either the reality we all agree on is really "without" or all the people you talk to about it are "within".

Since the latter is absurd, I choose the former.

It's very easy to put labels on things. But, to "experience" the soup which is "within" the can, is an entirely different story.

Originally posted by Iachhus32

Originally posted by Tom
What are you talking about?

I'm saying it's really easy to acknowledge what something is from the outside, almost everybody can agree upon that. But, to understand what's going on on the inside, and hence the essence or "experience" of the matter, it goes beyond just getting everybody to agree.

And yet at the same time it's far more personal and meaningful to "understand" things for oneself. Perhaps this is why in the "spiritual sense" understanding corresponds to "one's food." You know, like a "discerning palate?"

I hope this contributes ...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind.

That's the point of this thread. There's not one jot of evidence (rational or otherwise) which can prove the existence of a reality outside of our sensory-perception.

The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others,

That's not a reason. After all, we can communicate in dreams too. Does that mean our dreams exist outside the mind?
Remember that I'm advocating many relative-perceptions of one existence within one mind. In that case, we would be able to communicate with one another, through that mind.

compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions

There's no difference. Your awareness is your sensory-perceptions.

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958".

I'm surprised you keep mentioning that, since I have shown that you reject the premise of finite-time merely because it infers God's existence - and not because that premise does not make sense, by itself.
But I'd like to discuss the actual content of my argument, if you don't mind. This thing you mention is another issue altogether.

 

[heusdens]

And to bring up another argument, why it is to me the most reasonable assumption to state that a material world does exist, and not just in our sensory perception of it, is that ultimately our mind is dependend on this material world. Just try to imagine the world absent of anything that exists, and you know why. See the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's no difference. Your awareness is your sensory-perceptions.

I meant of course that you comare YOUR awareness of sensory perceptions with that of SOMEONE ELSE and communicate about this.
If it seems we have the same perception about, let's say, a chair, we conclude that this perceptions is caused by the real existing chair, which exists outside of our perceptions and mind. What can be a more reasonable assumption then that?

I'm surprised you keep mentioning that, since I have shown that you reject the premise of finite-time merely because it infers God's existence - and not because that premise does not make sense, by itself.

That's what I DID show you. You better read again my remarks I made about that. I even argued based on your own premise, that even that doesn't make sense, and comes down to absurdity.

But I'd like to discuss the actual content of my argument, if you don't mind. This thing you mention is another issue altogether.

Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind. The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others, compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions, and conclude that the subjective senses we have about the world, must have been caused by an objective material world, that exists independend of our mind.
One obvious conclusion you forget to draw (of course).

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958".

And yet the only thing that allows us to observe anthing is the fact we're conscious, and that we are "seperate." Otherwise it would be an entirely "collective experience," which it is not. If it was, then we would probably be reading each other's minds and there wouldn't be much of a need to "learn anything," i.e., that we might "mimic" the behavior of others.

It's really a matter of asking which came first. The essence? (or code). Or the form? ...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?

I have presented an argument which analyses sensory-perception. Yet you insist on talking about time (again). Let's continue to have the debate about time in the relevant threads.
If you think that anything I have said in my first post is incorrect, then highlight the part(s) you have a problem with and explain why they are wrong.

 

[heusdens]

Wether Mr Lifegazer assumes or not assumes there is a God, and wether he actually believes his statements about that or not, is of course of no interest for the discussions itself.

The only thing interesting is to see that he uses wrong reasoning to come up with this Deity. First and foremost he rejects:

1- That there exists a material world, in eternal motion that exists independend of our mind and awareness. That this must be the case follows from the fact that the reality of the material existence can be the only source of our experiences. Because not only we but also others, with which we are able to communicate and compare experiences with, experience the same reality. Based on that, there can only be two conclusions:
a- either the other persons/minds also are a fixation of our own mind (this is the position taken by solipsisms). It would mean I was the only person in the world, all else is entirely within my own mind.
b- or I have to conclude that the obvious reason for perceiving the same reality as anybody else, is that there exists an objetive material reality, independend of our mind and awareness.

Because conclusion a- is obviously unreasonable, we conclude that b- is the right conclusion.

2- The existing material world cannot have a beginning in time. Since this would imply the appearance of matter from nothing, and that motion arises out of no motion. This follows from our daily perceptions, and hundreds of years of scientific research. We don't want to have that thrown out of the window, just for enabling mythical things to have happened. For that (matter arising out of nothing), it can be stated, there is no evidence whatsoever.

3- There is not, can not, never has been or will be an "inexisting" world, there is always something, the universe we live in. That means that the material existing world, doesn't have a begin or end.


And these obvious facts he simply rejects for no other reason then to be able to come up with a Deity.


Suppose however that the arguments above could be rejected based on evidence or based on logical judgements, and we would conclude that a Deity exist. As can be shown, this would not be very much helpfull to explain the world as it is.

Argument 1.

The argument LG uses here, to reject this argument, is to introduce (arbitrarily) a new entity, he calls "The Mind". We are all part of that entity. But apart from the appearent difference in terminology, what would this altogether change our position? Mind would then just denote the same thing as matter.

Argument 2.

The argument LG uses here is that the infinity of time is impossible. The point is of course that the concept of infinity is ultimately contradictionary. Bet let us assume that we would conclude time had a beginning.
Then what was "before" or the cause of this beginning?
We can only state one of the following:
a- Nothing existed before time began. Which means matter and motion arise out of nothing. Which is something which needs explaining of course, since it defeats normal physical laws.
b- A Deity existed before that, and created the world.
This may sound helpful, but is not. The Deity just replaces the concept of nothing.

Other alternatives are of course impossible (based on the premise time had a beginning)
as for instance:
c- The Deity existed for all of eternity, and created the world. This means, the Deity exists in time, which contradicts the fact that time had a beginning. This is just what we inititally refused, the infinite time concept again! Calling matter 'Deity' before a specific time, is not in the least a contribution to solving the issue!

Argument 3.

This argument LG has not even attempted to reject, but instead confirmend, cause he agrees on the fact that a "nothingness" can not and does not have existence, and therefore an existing world must always be the case, which exists in time and space.
Nevertheless LG implicitly uses this concept, when he claims that time had a beginning. Which simply means that in his view, matter and motion came out of nothing.

Therefore we can simply reject the idea of a Deity, cause it would in no way alter our concept of matter, neither solve any contradiction we DO INDEED meet when defining material existence. This contradiction of existence can not be removed, without creating new and more profound contradictions, so it simply needs to be incorporated into out concept of matter and of the world.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?

Accourding to some of the things you have said in the other thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158", you have done nothing except make "reasonable assumptions." Whereas if you "had to choose" (between materialism or spiritualism) ... That is not proof.

On the other hand, if we all undestood that we derive our identities from God, then that would make each one of us unique individuals and validate this experience of "seperateness."

It's like each plant of it's own cognizance so to speak, must acknowledge "the sun" as the grounds for it's being, or else perish ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Accourding to some of the things you have said in the other thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158", you have done nothing except make "reasonable assumptions." Whereas if you "had to choose" (between materialism or spiritualism) ... That is not proof.

Did I claim it was? What I see as what constitues sufficient proof, is stated in my previous post in this thread.

On the other hand, if we all undestood that we derive our identities from God, then that would make each one of us unique individuals and validate this experience of "seperateness."

It's like each plant of it's own cognizance so to speak, must acknowledge "the sun" as the grounds for it's being, or else perish ...

As I see it, there is no God, and we ultimately derive out of matter in eternal motion. For the rest your statement could be or is applicable to the concept of matter, which is why we don't need the concept of God.

 

[Mentat]

I hope you don't mind a little skeptical criticism, lifegazer. Here is my argument:

(See the "Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis" thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97&highlight=Hurdles+to+the+Mind+hypothesis) for the meaning of the "Hurdles" that I will mention)

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion... which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.

I think you're right, up to here - except perhaps for the "six senses" part, but that's a topic for a different thread.

These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.

Now, wait a minute. Something had to impose the pain, didn't it? The mind may be the only thing that knows what pain is (even though that is debatable, given the fact that primitive life-forms can also feel pain), but why would it choose to impose "pain" on itself? If it were imposed from an external source, then it is obvious that the mind didn't choose pain, but your hypothesis doesn't allow for this (commonly held) explanation.

Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).

How do you get this past Hurdle's 2, 3, and 4?

we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe.

How do you get knowledge, without awareness? How can I say that I know something, if I'm not aware of it's existence? It doesn't seem logical to me.

Yes, I understand that you are referring to an omniscient Mind, that can know all things - and there's nothing wrong with believing in that - however, the Mind that "knows" these things, would have to be aware of these things first. You do not know something, before becoming aware of it's existence.

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.

This is incorrect. As Hurdle #3 points out, humans have had wrong assumptions about reality. They would never break out of these misconceptions, if one person's perception of reality was not different from everyone else's.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Did I claim it was? What I see as what constitues sufficient proof, is stated in my previous post in this thread.

What do you mean by sufficient proof? Can a woman be "sufficiently pregnant?" I don't think so. Thank God for that!

As I see it, there is no God, and we ultimately derive out of matter in eternal motion. For the rest your statement could be or is applicable to the concept of matter, which is why we don't need the concept of God.

As you see it? ...

 

[Mentat]

There's something else that bothers me, about the way you have worded your explanation of Mind hypothesis, lifegazer - which was otherwise worded very well, if I may say so. And that is that you first say that our minds produce our reality. That we can never prove that there exists anything outside of our own minds. And yet you are speaking of more than one person, when you say "minds". Furthermore, you then posit that reality is all the product of one Mind (God's), which would exist externally of our minds. Isn't that contradictory of saying that we can never prove the existence of something outside of our own minds?

 

[heusdens]

Ok, LG, let's have one more try then to show your whole assumption is dead wrong.

I see a chair. I can feel it, touch it. etc. My conclusion is: the chair is really there. Someone else comes in. He or she can also feel, touch and see the chair. After communicating our experiences, we conclude we had identical sensory perceptions about the chair. Now, I can state even more firmly: the chair is really there.

And this is of course not the only experience of a chair or other physical objects, but throughout the whole history of humaniry, we can come up with a huge amount of evidence for this kind of experiences. Almost uncountable numerous experiences.

Although we know to have only limited abilities to experience the physical world, our normal reasoning concludes, and urges us to conclude (not concluding would, as I have show you in examples, be life threatening!) that the physical world is really there, and not just an "inner perception".

Ok. Is that absolute proof? Absolute proof in my mind is impossible. But the proof is overwhelming, I would say. It fits our basic needs for understanding our world, it prevents us from doing things that would endanger our lives, and it enables us to utilize our environment for the benefit of us all.

So far, we can not really doubt this. If that would not be the case, then I would think the amount of traffic incidents would be enormously much higher, cause if in all honesty and subconsciously our human minds would really think that there was no outside world, then why do we look around us to avoid incoming cars when crossing the streets, for instance?

Our normal understanding therefore has to be that our inside perceptions reflect an outside world.

Now, your statement is, that we have to fundamentally distrust this position we have in life. Cause, in your opinion, there is no "proof" that that really is the case. Instead, it could just all be an illusion, a decpetion of our minds, that thinks there to be something, while in fact there isn't anything, just our "images" or "awarenesses" bot no real physical/material things that correspond to and are the source of that awarenesses.

Thus far, however, considering all the facts which I include (all human behaviour over all of history, that is based on the "assumption" the material world is really there, wether this is expressed as so, or not) I should state, that the "assumption" is stated rather firmly, on sufficient logical and empirical grounds.

So, now you come with an argument that in fact, all my reasoning and conclusions which I drew, and which billions of other peoples drew throughout all of history, are most profoundly and absolutely wrong.

Instead of "believing" in what they see, witness and experience, you ask them to drop that "biased" opinion, and tell them they were all wrong. Instead of the real existing world, they experience every day, and have to some extend knowledge about, you want them to "believe" that no such reality is in fact there. Instead of that, the only "real" thing that exits is this Deity, which no one had ever direct experience on.

In other words, you ask people to give up for everything they are and know and experience, to distrust everything they know so far, and to replace this world view with a religious concept of a Deity.

On the basis of what, Mr Lifegazer, are you entitled to decief so many people, and substitue their worldly views with a fixation of your own mind, you yourself most certainly and profoundly do not even believe in yourself?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
There's something else that bothers me, about the way you have worded your explanation of Mind hypothesis, lifegazer - which was otherwise worded very well, if I may say so. And that is that you first say that our minds produce our reality. That we can never prove that there exists anything outside of our own minds. And yet you are speaking of more than one person, when you say "minds". Furthermore, you then posit that reality is all the product of one Mind (God's), which would exist externally of our minds. Isn't that contradictory of saying that we can never prove the existence of something outside of our own minds?

Of course the reality of Mr Lifegazer does not believe the fixations of his own mind, he is just very stubborn in accepting every day life logic, and likes his own ideas so much, he can not help him mentioning them and discussing them over and over again.

Of course the assumption of an outside, objective reality, that is independend of our mind, is an unavoidable conclusion, but one that Mr Lifegazer hesitates to conform direclty, cause that would kill his concept of a Deity, which he likes so much. A Deity however, when consequently reasoned on the basis of his arguments, is not substantially different then the all day material reality we witness every day, and can't be of course.

If we accept the material assumptions, then it can be concluded that the concept of a Deity is an unnecessary addition to reality, or in other words pure nonsense.
His disacceptence of the basic premises, enables him to put forward his own premises (which he denies to proof on their own terms, for obvious reasons) but which ultimately lead to conclusions, that he previously rejected.

So, in an indirect way, he puts forwards the proof (when toroughly and rigourlously reasoned about) of the assumptions, he wanted to disproof.

 

[FZ+]

That's the point of this thread. There's not one jot of evidence (rational or otherwise) which can prove the existence of a reality outside of our sensory-perception.

And there is not one jot of evidence otherwise. The fact you are posting shows that you do not believe in this particular conclusion. Rather, your life, our lives, are based on the assumption, however irrational, that this is not true. So, are you hypocritical? It seems you are.

Well, I'll just fade into non-existence and leave you to your dreams.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Ok, LG, let's have one more try then to show your whole assumption is dead wrong.

I see a chair. I can feel it, touch it. etc. My conclusion is: the chair is really there. Someone else comes in. He or she can also feel, touch and see the chair. After communicating our experiences, we conclude we had identical sensory perceptions about the chair. Now, I can state even more firmly: the chair is really there.

If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

I can agree on that, but the opponent in this debate, Mr Lifegazer most profoundly rejects my conclusion.

The "use" of the other observer, is to then conclude, based on the rejection of Mr Lifegaser, that this leads to the absurd viewpoint/ position of solipsism, which claims that only my own mind really exists, and all other things, including the minds of others, are figments of my own mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

Heusdens is referring to the postulation (of lifegazer's) that the "chair" is really just a product of my mind; when I touch it, my mind is imposing a reality on my awareness, and the "chair" is not externally "there". Heusdens believes that the fact that someone else can validate the existence of the same "chair", proves that it must externally exist. I could (and lifegazer probably will) of course, argue that there may not really be another person, and you are really just asking your mind to re-validate the existence of that which it has already made you believe exists.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

All you ever did was turning around in circles based on flawed reasoning. But what you never provided was any substantial evidence for this 'Deity'. Not one bit. Neither you or anyone else ever can provide real evidence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
And there is not one jot of evidence otherwise. The fact you are posting shows that you do not believe in this particular conclusion. Rather, your life, our lives, are based on the assumption, however irrational, that this is not true. So, are you hypocritical? It seems you are.

Well, I'll just fade into non-existence and leave you to your dreams.

Good point.

 

[Mentat]

Alright, people, let's keep the sarcastic/contemptous remarks to a minimum, please.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.

Wrong, and I will proof this with one counter example.
I and everyone else, have the awareness of "being there" that is self-awareness or self-consciousness. Even when people have a deficit in all their senses (can't hear, can't see, can't smell, can't touch, etc), still they know they are there. And not only that, also they know that they know that they are there. And they know that they know that they know they are there. Etc.

And the other, more important thing is. You can "say" and "make believe" to others, in a rational way, that there isn't a proof for this "external reality" as you call it, but I am very sure that within your consciousness and being, you are in fact not believing one bit of that. Cause all of your being, both consciousnessly and unconsciousnessly, reflects to the outer world as if it is really there.

Put it to the test, and decide for yourself one time. Do the experiment, and try to really assume that nothing that comes to your senses, is really existing. Try really hard to imagine that anything that exist, in facts does not exist. If you pursue hard enough, you will then know what your own mind will state to yourself.
Just try it, it can't harm or endanger your life, it's just a thought experiment. The answer that comes up, is really very simple.

(See also: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876")

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens is referring to the postulation (of lifegazer's) that the "chair" is really just a product of my mind; when I touch it, my mind is imposing a reality on my awareness, and the "chair" is not externally "there". Heusdens believes that the fact that someone else can validate the existence of the same "chair", proves that it must externally exist. I could (and lifegazer probably will) of course, argue that there may not really be another person, and you are really just asking your mind to re-validate the existence of that which it has already made you believe exists.

Heusdens tried saying the same thing to me, but this was my way of countering it. The only problem with Lifegazer is that he needs to learn to merge the idea with the experience--i.e., in the here and now.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Heusdens tried saying the same thing to me, but this was my way of countering it. The only problem with Lifegazer is that he needs to learn to merge the idea with the experience--i.e., in the here and now.

Have you even read Lifegazer's hypothesis. Believe me, that is not his only problem.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Have you even read Lifegazer's hypothesis. Believe me, that is not his only problem.

No, but I have discussed a couple of ideas with him. He seems to be on the "other side of the barrier" so to speak. But then again that's kind of where it all begins, with the "initial idea."

 

[Lifegazer]

I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.
And Fz... what was that post about? Post a few scathing lines and then declare that you're running-off into the distance. Please... either participate fairly, or don't bother. I'm not going to be drawn into the issue of my persona in relation to my philosophy. The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that a lot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

Can you proof to me that this concept of "God" is not equivalent to the concept of "nothingeness" (nothingness being the absence of any "something" that has existence).

The important thing here is of course that it might very well be that you have in your mind established for yourself a concept of some sorts, but concepts themselves don't make things move, don't create universes, or cause existence.

Since I assume you can not proof that your concept is in any way different then a concept of nothingness (of which we already concluded that it is not "something that exists" and thus can not form any reasonable explenation that the world exists, let alone "cause" the world to be) it is therefore no counterproof of the premises that were establised on the basis of materialism, which you claim to have disproven.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, but I have discussed a couple of ideas with him. He seems to be on the "other side of the barrier" so to speak. But then again that's kind of where it all begins, with the "initial idea."

On the other side of what "barrier"?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
On the other side of what "barrier"?

The barrier between what I sense (in mind) and what you sense (in your mind) and that which we experience "collectively," in the here and now.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.
And Fz... what was that post about? Post a few scathing lines and then declare that you're running-off into the distance. Please... either participate fairly, or don't bother. I'm not going to be drawn into the issue of my persona in relation to my philosophy. The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that a lot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.

The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work. By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality. Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption. If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results. You get a view of life that justifies no action. Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist, so indeed you talk to yourself. And the moment I stop posting, I cease to exist. So why do you reply at all? It means on one level, you have automatically made the assumption that an external reality does exist, and an externally conscious FZ+ is therein. Hence, by communicating itself, you have assumed that the act of communication is an unreasonable action. Because that implies that there is something I know that you don't, that there is external value outside your perception, which is disallowed by your decision. Either that or your assumption itself is unreasonable.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that a lot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.

Are you speaking of realization then or manifestation? Feelings can also be construed as gut instinct, and if you could provide something on that level, then perhaps you could provide something that's easier for everyone to relate to?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.

Then will you respond to my counter-arguments?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work. By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality. Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption. If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results. You get a view of life that justifies no action. Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist, so indeed you talk to yourself. And the moment I stop posting, I cease to exist. So why do you reply at all? It means on one level, you have automatically made the assumption that an external reality does exist, and an externally conscious FZ+ is therein. Hence, by communicating itself, you have assumed that the act of communication is an unreasonable action. Because that implies that there is something I know that you don't, that there is external value outside your perception, which is disallowed by your decision. Either that or your assumption itself is unreasonable.

The question is this. Wether or not Mr Lifegazer says and "thinks" (or thinks that he thinks, or thinks that he thinks that he thinks, etc) that no outside world can be assumed, Mr Lifegazer as a complete human mind system, is practicaly at all levels of his (conscious and unconsciouss) existence, "aware" of this outside world (not just assuming it exists as an outside entity, but reacting accordingly).
Like the fact that gravity puts him in place on his chair, while he writes his posts, without one single atom of his body consciously being aware of that, but just reacting accordingly to the laws of gravity, his stomach digesting the food he had just taken in, and his longues inspiring the air in, needed for his body and mind system to work, etc. The whole of his existence of Mr Lifegazer, is a proof that his theorems make no sense, since else in fact, Mr Lifegazer would not be there.
Minds are strange things, in that anyone is able of making false claims. I can say "I do not exist". I can say "I have shoes on" while in fact going with naked foots. Etc. This is a property of his system, that at no lower level of his existence exists. The atoms and molecules are not able of claiming that there is no gravity. He can not force his stomach to no digest the food he just ate. Etc.
Everything of the system of Mr Lifegazer have to obey the natural laws, which are ultimately based on the "doctrine" of existence.
So all of his whole system, in fact is not much more then a machine, just processing output simuli according to the laws that govern matter. Seen in this perspective, the individual person of Mr Lifegazer does not exists at all, it is just an entity, a very sophisticated one, but just conforms to the laws governing matter.
There is only one exception, he thinks. He can form in his minds concepts of things, or even complete worldviews, that are totally and radically different from reality itself. This is where he thinks, his freedom of mind has a place to be. And all he asks us, is to grant him that freedom, to diametrically oppose common views, knowledge, and proven facts. It's not that he doesn't know those things, or actually believes the things he says, it is just that he shows us that he has the freedom to express them. For no other appearant reasons then to express his freedom (or what he thinks freedom is) to us.